Should America/NATO support Syrian resistance the way it did in Libya?

The step from a tribal culture to an overarching democratic government is huge. What is normal tribal fealty in one system is outright corruption in the other. That's why so many emerging democracies are constantly riddled with corruption, and therefore have a hard time earning the respect of the people. And without respect, Democracy is doomed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?_r=0

Orwell wrote:
What evidence do you want? Democracies evolved in parts of the world. They can evolve in other parts. What more evidence do you need?

Schools that girls can go to have been built in Afghanistan. When American troops go, they'll close. Change won't happen in that scenario.

I'm currently involved in reading this:

http://www.e-ir.info/2008/10/20/lessons-in-nation-building-the-american-reconstruction-of-germany-and-japan/

And will return to the fray when done.

Okay, finished.  Here's some quotes from a very detailed analysis:

"Countries emerge from conflict under different and unique conditions.  Thus the nation-building efforts will differ from country to country.  There is no doubt that the two cases of Germany and Japan differ from the case of Afghanistan.  The high level of education and industrial know-how in post-war Germany and Japan helped launch an economic recovery in both countries that is inconceivable almost anywhere else.  Germany also had a strong tradition of the rule of law, property rights, and free trade before the Nazi era.  Japan’s elite embraced a honorific culture that respected and obeyed the wishes of the victor in battle.  Afghanistan, in contrast, has little in the way of either liberal traditions or cultural attitudes that are agreeable to massive foreign interference.  Furthermore, the leaders of Germany and Japan were not just utterly defeated in war.  At the war’s end their ideology was totally discredited in the eyes of their own people.  Thus both countries were prime candidates for nation-building.  However, it is premature to assume the same pattern will hold for the leaders of the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Islamic fundamentalism remains powerful, and its defenders are still seen as heroes and martyrs among much of the population."

"Germany and Japan were both strategically and economically important to the US in the Cold War.  It was imperative to the US that both were reconstructed democratically to ensure a peaceful world order.  What is important is that the US never promised it would turn Afghanistan into a model democracy.  The objective rather, was to end the country’s legacy as a haven for terrorists and to bring a modicum of stability to its population.  Hence the ‘light footprint’ approach and lack of commitment. In Afghanistan post-war peace remains precarious.  The country is not quite at peace and not quite at war.  America continues to show reluctance to commit adequate resources to close the security gap that fuels social, political, and economic instability.  It is clear the lessons of nation-building from Germany and Japan have not been implemented in Afghanistan."

Comes down to what David is saying about something has to be there to begin with, and Orwell's note about a lack of commitment. The two are linked: why commit to something that likely may never come to pass?

I think the paragraph preceding you second excerpt makes some very reasonable points about why copying the German/Japanese model wouldn't work for Afghanistan no matter how much the US commits to it.

Given that the Afghanistan nation-building efforts are much more complex than that of Germany and Japan, and that some of the lessons that could have been applied to the Afghan case, were not, it could be argued that the US is content on stabilisation rather than nation-building. We can point to the fact that in the initial stages of the Afghan operation America used the ‘light footprint’ approach rather than using its full military force to underpin democratic transformation. According to Fukuyama, Nations – that is to say, communities of shared values, traditions, and historical memory, are never built, particularly by outsiders rather, they evolve out of an unplanned historical evolutionary process. What Americans refer to as nation-building is rather state-building – that is, constructing political institutions, or else promoting economic development.[118] With the cases of Germany and Japan, he claims that the influence of America is exaggerated as they did relatively little state-building as both countries possessed state bureaucracies that survived the war weakened but structurally intact. What did occur was the re-legitimation of new governments on a democratic basis. What went on in both cases under the rubric of nation-building looks quite different from that of Afghanistan were the state itself has ceased to exist.

I think you did zero in on the key point, though I thought the subtle difference between nation and state made it a harder paragraph to absorb so didn't quote it. I was very pleased though to finally find a detailed description of the process in germany and japan. Glad you read it, I'm curious to see what Orwell thinks.

The difference between nations and states (and also sovereign states and federated states) can certainly get confusing, but it's a pretty crucial concept in international relations.  It can be easy to forget that many states throughout the world do not have a distinct national identity, but rather comprise many distinct nations, which can themselves overlap with multiple different states.  This is the norm in much of Africa and Asia, though it is uncommon in Europe, where most nations have their own states now, and somewhat in the Americas, which had a very different colonial experience.

Thanks for posting the link to that essay.

Eldorion wrote:That's a painfully simplistic war of looking at the picture since democracy's track record around the world is actually incredibly spotty.

And where it has succeeded is where commitment has been shown. Change comes wth commitment. It is simple. Intellectuals tend to over think things and sit on their hands. Once you know what your core principles are, you stand by them and act and continue to act. That is not idealism, that is realism. Sadly, the most committed are usually Fascists like Hitler and Religionists like Khomeni. Churchill was committed too. If Europe had listened to him - and not Chamberlain - then Hitler would have been resisted much earlier in the piece.

Eldorion wrote:I've tried discussing the circumstances in which democracies have emerged in less-developed countries since World War II (since that's the category that Afghanistan falls into) but you seemed more interested in claiming that I don't care about oppression or women.

I don't think you don't care, you just seem too much an apologist for doing nothing because 'historically' some countries are not Modern. Traditional cultures can and will change, especially if they are taken on bravely and persistently, whether internally or externally or both - and not retreat because it's hard, or history (apparently) is against such change. (Even America has become more Modern over time and through hard toil, heroism, and resistence mounted by enlightened agents for change). According to your view of the lessons of history the idea of (democratic) progress in traditional cultures is absurdist. That's absurd.

Btw building schools to educate girls and supporting the existence of those schools with military back up will speed things up in the Modernization process. If Feminists in America had listened to the likes of you and Petty, women would still be third class citizens - just behind cattle in the hierarchy of Male respect - and that's the reality. Women have fought hard against history and have largely won in the West. It was never without risk or pain, and if they had listened to folk like you and Petty, they'd still be Third class citizens, in spite of your kind and encouraging thoughts towards them. (Or, at least, your kind thoughts - I'm not quite sure about Petty in this area.  )  

Eldorion wrote:No one likes Assad, but I'm glad we at least agree that funding Islamists is a bad idea.

It appears we have agreed on that all along, so not all is lost. I'll just have to work harder to make you a brave agent of change, for all those women and girls I know you do care about - in theory if not in practice. And in spite of democracies being spotty.  

Can you point to any historical examples of a mission like America's in Afghanistan succeeding even a little bit?  Or any country that successfully democratized as a result of being invaded and occupied (excluding Germany and Japan for the reasons that Halfwise's link brought up)?

This is what I mean by feeling like there's nothing to discuss because you're just repeating ideological talking points. If you want to spend thousands of lives and billions of dollars on a mission like this you need more than faith that it's going to work out.

[quote="Orwell"]

Eldorion wrote: Sadly, the most committed are usually Fascists like Hitler and Religionists like Khomeni. Churchill was committed too.

I'm afraid it's hard for me to think of Churchill in those early years without remembering the bombing of the unsuspecting French Navy at Mers el Kebir, and the needless deaths of 1,300 French sailors. His was exactly the kind of commitment that can commit a massacre or genocide for the greater good of his nation. Commitment like this scares the hell out of me!

Churchill was also pretty committed to the idea of war with the Soviet Union once the Nazis were defeated. If only that limp-wristed leftist Clement Attlee hadn't won the general election in 1945!

Eldorion wrote:Can you point to any historical examples of a mission like America's in Afghanistan succeeding even a little bit?  Or any country that successfully democratized as a result of being invaded and occupied (excluding Germany and Japan for the reasons that Halfwise's link brought up)?

History is in the past. Countries evolve. There are no set principles in anything. If you want to go back and dissect history, you soon discover that all things happen in a state of flux, obeying only the rules of it's own set of circumstances. History speaks in broad terms and general principles. One historical situation is different to the next, though historians in their armchairs see patterns and predict outcomes accurately, but always after the fact. Even I can do that. The future is always guesswork, no matter what has happened in the past. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but events don't obey historical precedents, though sometimes events seem to repeat. Seem to. Don't be a prisoner of history, Eldo, be a mover and a shaker - and don't be too fooled by the idea that those who don't learn from history are forced to repeat it, that is a concept and not always a reality (though informing oneself on history is no bad thing, that's not what I'm saying).  What didn't work once may work next time. There are no certainties. History is an academic subject, not an ongoing reality. Don't confuse the two. 

Eldorion wrote:This is what I mean by feeling like there's nothing to discuss because you're just repeating ideological talking points.  If you want to spend thousands of lives and billions of dollars on a mission like this you need more than faith that it's going to work out.

I base my views on a lot of reading and a lot of life experience. I repeat myself because I'm consistent about things and feel the need to repeat myself here. Just as you do. We all do. Don't exempt me. (That's hardly fair!)

And you're right, we do need to ask what price we should pay to free women. For me the underpinning principle is that we fight to enfranchise women everywhere, and pay the price - because I believe that's good for humanity. There, that's my Ideal. If achieaveable in the West, then it's achieveable in the East. Again, if one hasn't got the power of true conviction, you won't pay the price. America retreating is only paying one price, the price of failure. That's reality. It bothers me that a young guy like you is defeated before you've even begun, while a scared old man like me still believes in things and accepts you need to be a bit tough and live dangerously to achieve worthwhile things. I might also say, idealism usually only fails through lack of will (action). I hate the way women and girls are treated in certain societies. I look at my Mother, my Wife and my Daughter and think, well, they're being treated reasonably fairly after thousands of years of abuse. And I see their contribution to Human progress too, now that they're allowed to contribute more fullly in the West. Why would I not strongly support the same thing for Afghani women? That girl fighting for an Education who got shot in Afghanistan is a hero of mine. She's not against fighting the Taliban. Nor is her Father. Not with guns but with brute courage. I'm glad that American guns are there to try and protect people like that. Why wouldn't you be deeply proud of that? Yep, I'm indulging in a bit of hyperbole - but I believe all this stuff. We can always wash our hands of the business, but I reckon that's piss weak. And I don't care if I'm a dissenting voice here.

Oh yes, about my 'Lefty' teasing. Believe it or not, I'm a Lefty-leaning guy. I can laugh at myself but, like most Lefties, much prefer laughing at other people. It helps deflect personal responsibility for things, I think. Admittedly, we Lefties usually reserve our humorous scorn for Righties and not own own flock - but none of them are here, so it's you lot who must pay service. I mean, I've got a lot of humorous scorn built up that needs release, you know!

Eldorion wrote:Churchill was also pretty committed to the idea of war with the Soviet Union once the Nazis were defeated.  If only that limp-wristed leftist Clement Attlee hadn't won the general election in 1945!

Don't talk to me about that fop, Attlee...  

His inaction and weakness caused - indirectly - the death of millions of Russians --- more than a quick conquering by the West would have inflicted... And no Communism - imagine that! Yet another example of the Intelligentsia being big on Ideas and weak on Moral Fortitude. Glad we agree, Eldo. My father fought in the Second World War and expressed a bit of disappointment that Stalin wasn't removed before he murdered millions upon millions of his own people (and Poles among others too). Attlee was the Neville Chamberlain of his time. Astute of you to pick that up.  "Limp-wristed leftist' - very accurate of you.

In fairness to Brittish voters, they were weary and traumatized by The War and were feeling a bit weak and whimpy at the time, and understandably so.

David H wrote:I'm afraid it's hard for me to think of Churchill in those early years without remembering the bombing of the unsuspecting French Navy at Mers el Kebir, and the needless deaths of 1,300 French sailors.  His was exactly the kind of commitment that can commit a massacre or genocide  for the greater good of his nation. Commitment like this scares the hell out of me!

Me too - but commitment is commitment. Churchill felt he could not take the risk. Decision makers will always be scrutinized and criticized, but thank goodness we had Churchill on our side, for all his judgements and/or misjudgements. Better him doing the hard things rather than you or me who, all said and done, are anonymous and have all care and no responsibility in these big ticket issues.

Orwell wrote:

David H wrote:I'm afraid it's hard for me to think of Churchill in those early years without remembering the bombing of the unsuspecting French Navy at Mers el Kebir, and the needless deaths of 1,300 French sailors.  His was exactly the kind of commitment that can commit a massacre or genocide  for the greater good of his nation. Commitment like this scares the hell out of me!

Me too - but commitment is commitment. Churchill felt he could not take the risk. Decision makers will always be scrutinized and criticized, but thank goodness we had Churchill on our side, for all his judgements and/or misjudgements. Better him doing the hard things rather than you or me who, all said and done, are anonymous and have all care and no responsibility in these big ticket issues.

hear hear Orwell, without the dogged commitment of Churchill fascists would have invaded and turned London into a second Vichy government, only it woudnt, because the British would rather have died than see their country under Hitlers boot. Churchill had his faults, he made mistakes, sometimes big ones but without his commitment, which I call courage in the face of impossible odds, democracy would probably have died in Europe. Simply he was the greatest Englishman who ever lived. call it jingoistic nationalist pride, I dont care, he makes me proud.

Mrs Figg wrote:hear hear Orwell, without the dogged commitment of Churchill fascists would have invaded and turned London into a second Vichy government, only it woudn't, because the British would rather have died than see their country under Hitlers boot. Churchill had his faults, he made mistakes, sometimes big ones but without his commitment, which I call courage in the face of impossible odds, democracy would probably have died in Europe. Simply he was the greatest Englishman who ever lived. call it jingoistic nationalist pride, I dont care, he makes me proud.

If only Churchill was leading the American troops in Afghanistan, Mrs Figg! Then maybe women and girls might have a chance of enjoying democracy (and freedom). Alack! With pressure from within and at home, the Americans have buckled. (Hey! Their President is a descendant of slaves. You'd think he'd stand tall!  ) I don't blame them though. When all those who should support women and girls in the Modern world despise you while you're building schools and hospitals and democracy, making out you're wickeder than the Taliban, then all courage to persevere is lost. History is telling us that nothing can - or should? - be done.  If a girl has been sold into marriage, but you don't see it happen, did it happen? And if a girl is shot in the head for wanting an education and it's reported by the media... well, shame on you Media - we don't want to know. Out of sight out of mind, I say. But let's encourage all girls and women in Afghanistan to be who they want to be. Good on them. They must like it as it is though, because not more of them are standing up to be murdered, and presumably if more are not standing up to be murdered, these woman and girl slaves don't even exist. Oh yes, and is there any kind of Freedom Movement (or Freedom Wish), however underground? No, it doesn't exist. Oh and the Afghani supporters of their Government are a very small minority. Not many people speak up against the Taliban. I wonder if they don't want to be murdered? No, they don't exist. And would girls being educated help progress democracy? Silly idea. Too simple.

Anyway, Churchill was committed. At least we have that to hang onto, Mrs Figg. There once was someone with the power of his (democratic) convictions in this world.

Well I'm off for a few days of vacation out of palantir range, but some silliness must be dealt with before I go.

Orwell, old chap, it's clear that in line with your policy of declaration rather than analysis that you have not read the scholarly comparison of nation building in germany and japan versus in afghanistan. What it boils down to is commitment works, if you have something to work with. In afghanistan there are no viable institutions to work with, haven't been for generations untold.

So if you think committed idealism alone will do the job, then leave the Americans out of it. We are tired from endless war upon war with nothing to show for it. Tell you what, why don't you take your idealism and go rev up the Oz-hobbits? No, no, don't let yourself be distracted by realism. From my understanding the Oz forces are small, but doughty.

Mrs Figg wrote:Churchill had his faults, he made mistakes, sometimes big ones but without his commitment, which I call courage in the face of impossible odds, democracy would probably have died in Europe. Simply he was the greatest Englishman who ever lived. call it jingoistic nationalist pride, I dont care, he makes me proud.

I respect that completely. Churchill was an inspirational figure at a very dark time. I hope you understand that my point of view is deeply rooted as well, coming from my Dad who was a decorated combat veteran, having fought across Europe and having lost his brother in the Pacific. He admired Churchill too, but he also loathed him, especially when he talked about the atrocities at the end like the fire-bombings.

The reason I thought of the massacre of the French fleet at Mers el Kebir in particular is that it seems that the main point of killing all those French sailors was to make a statement. There were easier and less dramatic ways to solve the problem keeping the French fleet out of German hands without the useless loss of life, but that wouldn't have served the purpose.

Churchill later declared the action meant that for "high government circles in the United States ... there was no more talk of Britain giving in." Harold Nicolson reported the House of Commons to have been "fortified" by Churchill's report of the action.

A year later, the Japanese did the same thing by launching a sneak attack on a navy they weren't at war with in Pearl Harbor. An old neighbor of ours when I was growing up had been a sailor there, and had survived by swimming under the burning oil. Churchill's comment on hearing of Pear Harbor was, "We have won the War!" We had successfully been drawn into the conflict, and a half a million American deaths later Churchill would be proved right.

I do admire Churchill, in the same way I admire Napoleon or George Armstrong Custer. He was an inspirational figure. He was the right man at the right time. He loved principles more than he loved people. He was always happy to escalate the killings. He loved War above all else. Thank God he wasn't in power with his finger on a red button during the height of the Cold War. We'd all be dead several times over by now. The British people deserve a lot of credit for stepping him down when they did.

There's very little to say in response to ideological posturing, but I think this part really highlights the logical disconnect in your argument, Orwell.

Orwell wrote:His inaction and weakness caused - indirectly - the death of millions of Russians --- more than a quick conquering by the West would have inflicted...

The idea that you think the West could "quickly conquer" another country with a minimum of death and suffering and then successfully begin a democracy there betrays either dangerous naivete or willful ignorance.  It's especially absurd when talking about Russia, but the point stands for Afghanistan too.  Plenty of people around the world would like to see more democratic freedoms in their country, but just as many would hate the idea of being invaded and having a new government imposed on them by other countries.  This is what I meant by paternalism a few pages back.  It's the whole "we'll be welcomed as liberators" bullshit that Bush and Cheney tried to sell in 2003 with Iraq.  It has no basis in anything resembling reality.  I know that you like to be grossly sarcastic a lot of the time so I'm left with one of two conclusions: either you honestly believe this tripe, or you're just pulling my chain.

Oh, and Churchill was a very inspirational figure for democratic countries in Europe, but he (and most of the other prophets of democracy from his era including Woodrow Wilson) were staunchly anti-democracy in the case of (former) colonies that wanted to throw off their ties to Europe.

He admired Churchill too, but he also loathed him, especially when he talked about the atrocities at the end like the fire-bombings. - David

This is what I meant earlier when I said if the West really wants to do stuff like this we need to be ruthlessly brutal- war is not the place for peace makers.
What Churchill did to get the US into the war- which included not informing US civilian shipping of uboat activity in the hope the Nazi's would attack and the loss of life bring America in- was what was needed- without someone that ruthless with others lives the war would have been lost.

But there is no stomach for war on the old scale- for numbers of not hundreds or a few thousands but tens of thousand going to war- of not trying to prod a country to democracy and acting like its police force- but by brutally removing any opposing or dissenting voices and establishing a ruling parliament.

When the West goes to war now it is so conscious of watching eyes back home, the 24 hour rolling news, the internet, that its fighting with at least one hand tied behind its back- whilst the enemy is free to act.

Churchill as you have said, was a man of his time, and he was there when we needed someone ruthless. It wouldnt work in the modern age where there are more nukes about. He used a bludgen when today theres more diplomatic cunning and posturing, he would have hated all the shillyshallying. mind you he would have probably left the Middle East to its destiny. wouldnt have touched it with a bargepole. He was from the old warrior classes, there arent any leaders like that any more in Britain. apart from Thatcher I suppose.

Very good point about nukes, Mrs Figg.  They have forced a reconsideration of war and its relationship with diplomacy.  As big a risk as they pose, I think nukes were the single biggest factor in preventing the Cold War from becoming World War III. They continue to pose a threat that is understood by all, regardless of ideology or system of government.

Halfwise said: "Well I'm off for a few days of vacation out of palantir range, but some silliness must be dealt with before I go."

"Orwell, old chap, it's clear that in line with your policy of declaration rather than analysis that you have not read the scholarly comparison of nation building in germany and japan versus in afghanistan. What it boils down to is commitment works, if you have something to work with. In afghanistan there are no viable institutions to work with, haven't been for generations untold."

There is a government in Afghanistan, Halfy. How is that not an institution? That's where the democracy starts. It's got to start somewhere. That is realism. To say it can't start - because of past history - is defeatism.

"So if you think committed idealism alone will do the job, then leave the Americans out of it."

What a perfect distortion of everything I've said. What you say is just not true. I mentioned schools being built and girls going to them. That's meaningless idealism to you, not practicality? I'd be proud of what you Americans are working to support - but I don't expect you should be burdened to stay. So be it. But don't deride the effort. I regret the cutting and running, and I don't pretend success can't be achieved. Commitment to strengthening institutions and even helping build institutions is a practical strategy - fueled by idealism.  

"We are tired from endless war upon war with nothing to show for it."

That's your real point and fair enough. If the women and girls continue to suffer, it's Afghanistan's problem. I agree. But I still admire what Americans have achieved there.

"Tell you what, why don't you take your idealism and go rev up the Oz-hobbits? No, no, don't let yourself be distracted by realism. From my understanding the Oz forces are small, but doughty."

Ozhobbits have played their part. Ozhobbits have died there. I admire their efforts too. Didn't you know Ozhobbits were there building schools and supporting the main force for democracy, America? How shallow is your knowledge of things in Afghanistan?  

Let me clear something up for you - which I thought was implicit in all my posts - I don't expect that Americans have to stay, or that it's their moral responsibility any more than it is any Human who believes in democracy and freedom to help, I'm just saying I admire them for being there working practically to help the country and that their cutting and running is a negative and not a positive for the country. And the cutting and running is because people like you pressure your Government because you are "tired from endless war upon war with nothing to show for it." Or at least, nothing to show for it that you're willing to see or recognize. What an insult to your troops that is.

America may not want to go on paying the price of success. Fair enough. But don't pretend that the price paid is worthless or that the chances of success are an idealistic impossibility. Democracy can succeed anywhere, but it's more difficult to achieve in some places, and there might not be the will and patience to achieve it.

Eldorion wrote:There's very little to say in response to ideological posturing, but I think this part really highlights the logical disconnect in your argument, Orwell.

What a perfectly stupid comment, Eldo. If you want to indulge in straight insults, I'm happy to trade. But really?

Eldorion wrote:The idea that you think the West could "quickly conquer" another country with a minimum of death and suffering and then successfully begin a democracy there betrays either dangerous naivete or willful ignorance.  It's especially absurd when talking about Russia, but the point stands for Afghanistan too.  Plenty of people around the world would like to see more democratic freedoms in their country, but just as many would hate the idea of being invaded and having a new government imposed on them by other countries.  This is what I meant by paternalism a few pages back.  It's the whole "we'll be welcomed as liberators" bullshit that Bush and Cheney tried to sell in 2003 with Iraq.  It has no basis in anything resembling reality.  I know that you like to be grossly sarcastic a lot of the time so I'm left with one of two conclusions: either you honestly believe this tripe, or you're just pulling my chain.

The view of the time was that Russia was incredibly vulnerable and the Allies very strong. Read your history books again. (Forget your TV or You Tube documentaries and get into the substance of things, Eldo). As to the 'grossly sarcastic' - I guess you're American and don't know what 'gentle chiding' or 'tongue in cheek' is, nor know what a sense of humour is. (The last sentence was grossly sarcastic - and, yet, kind of true...maybe...  )

Eldorion wrote:Oh, and Churchill was a very inspirational figure for democratic countries in Europe, but he (and most of the other prophets of democracy from his era including Woodrow Wilson) were staunchly anti-democracy in the case of (former) colonies that wanted to throw off their ties to Europe.

I really don't know what to say but..... Huh? You think that adds something worthwhile to the discussion?

Orwell wrote: I'd be proud of what you Americans are working to support - but I don't expect you should be burdened to stay. So be it. But don't deride the effort. I regret the cutting and running, and I don't pretend success can't be achieved. Commitment to strengthening institutions and even helping build institutions is a practical strategy - fueled by idealism.  

"We are tired from endless war upon war with nothing to show for it."

That's your real point and fair enough. If the women and girls continue to suffer, it's Afghanistan's problem. I agree. But I still admire what Americans have achieved there.

The shame of it is that with just a little more effort it could have been so much more successful.

One of my brother's teachers had been in Afghanistan with the Peace Corps teaching teachers for the rural schools until they were all pulled out for their safety following the Soviet invasion.  That was education for everybody, men and women, boys and girls, and it was accepted because it was understood as a gift.

Rather than continuing to support those schools in some way, (granted it would have been difficult with the Soviets occupying, but not impossible) the US efforts turned to building and supporting a radical Islamist insurgency which evolved into the Taliban as we know it today.

Then when the Soviets pulled out, when we should have resumed the old education programs on steroids, we did....absolutely nothing!   

Instead we left a gaping educational void that was quickly filled by the madrases, all fundamentalist, many militant, built on the infrastructure framework that we had left behind.  It was just lunacy!  

I agree David, and I appreciate your lucidity on the subject. There have been mistakes made, and some of a cynical nature. Credit - and discredit - where it's due.

I realize suddenly that I best play a straight back on these Serious Threads, my tendency to humour and teasing, and some sarcasm (though not deliberately a lot, Eldo, though maybe I can see why you think it), is not appropriate here. The subject is too important to me for me to undermine my own arguments with sudden flashes of frivolity and teasing. It leaves me quite open to what I believe is misinterpretation for a start, and it's an approach that is not, in the end, respectful, so I apologize to Eldo and Halfwise for that.

In light of playing a straight bat, I thought I might re-join this discussion on Afghanisitan by clearly putting forward some basic personal views, which of course - like always - are open to scrutiny and opposite viewpoints.

(1)  The Americans and other countries invaded Afghanistan in reaction to the Taliban harbouring those forces that murdered all those people in the Twin Towers and elsewhere in America. I have misgivings still about the invasion, but have (and had) no real disagreement with that happening, even though many innocent people have died. I believe I understood why it's advocates thought it necessary. But anyone with an ounce of decency would regret all the innocent deaths.

(2) Initially, it was an occupying force made up of several nations which began as early as possible to work with a significant number of Afghani's to install a democratic-style Government. After a few years such Government - for all it's faults and corruption - was elected. A significant number of Afghani's - despite the protests here - want Democracy, or, at least, the Freedoms strong democracies bring. My special focus, of course, is the emancipation of women.

(3) America (with others) is now a Support Force to an elected Afghani Government's forces, training and supporting said forces until they are able to defend their own form of democracy. And one that wants to get out as soon as possible, which further puts the lie to some degree in my mind, to the idea put that it's (still) an Occupying Force per se.  

(4) There has been much achieved. Schools built etcetera. Stuff that David rightly suggests might have been done many years ago under a different regime. It frustrates me that this has not been acknowledged on this thread.

(5) If the Americans want to get out, then that's understandable. Nonetheless, I'm proud of what they (and Australians, and others) are doing in the country. I feel sad that their endeavours to help the Afghani's pursue their own freedom from Religious Autocracy is being so universally belittled - and I don't shy away from being disturbed and disappointed by the defeatism involved in said belittling. None of this implies that I don't think wrong and/or mistaken things have been done by the Support Forces from time to time.

(6) I believe in the Democratic Ideal - and I can see how that might make me an ideologue. These things are never about how ones sees oneself but about how others see you. I'll have to live with that label. Fair enough. Actually, if that's what I'm being called, I kind of like it, because the one thing I can agree with ideologues on is their commitment to their beliefs.

EDIT: I might have put at the end of the six paragraphs above: 'in my opinion'. I know everything I've said can be scrutinized and doubted. Maybe they're even things I can be persuaded to change my mind about. I say this because I don't think being a committed democratic necessarily makes you an ideolgoue. I actually believe it makes you something quite opposite. A Free Thinker? Perhaps that pushes the idea too far?  But calling yourself a democrat does suggest to me that you're willing to be tolerant and as open minded as reasonably possible - and accept you might not always be right about something, even if at any given moment in time, you think you are right about something.